Politics

America First or Last? The Conservative Case for Re-Evaluating Foreign Aid

Published

3 months ago

December 4, 2025

VORNews

America First or Last? The Conservative Case

As America stares at a national debt above $35 trillion and families struggle with inflation that eats into paychecks and savings, a sharp fight has broken out over one of Washington’s largest recent spending commitments: foreign aid to Ukraine.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, the U.S. has pledged roughly $175 billion in emergency support for Ukraine, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. That headline number includes military gear, economic support, and humanitarian relief.

For many conservatives, this raises a basic question. Does this ongoing river of money actually serve American interests, or is “America First” just a slogan while our leaders keep funding another distant conflict?

The “America First” slogan, central to former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, promised a reset of how the U.S. engages abroad. It stressed domestic security, a strong economy, and spending restraint instead of open-ended missions overseas. Yet three years into the war, billions still move toward Kyiv with no clear end in sight.

With Trump back in the White House in January 2025 and signaling a shift toward reduced foreign entanglements, conservatives are taking a harder look at Ukraine aid. Supporters call it a shield against Russian aggression. Critics, including experts at the Heritage Foundation and figures like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), see a costly project that drains money from urgent needs at home.

This piece walks through the numbers, the strategy, and a conservative argument for dialing back U.S. support for Ukraine in the name of a real “America First” agenda.

The True Price Tag of Ukraine Aid

Headline Costs vs. Actual Spending

At first glance, $175 billion sounds enormous. It rivals the yearly budgets of several federal departments combined. A closer look at the data, though, shows a complex mix of appropriations, pledges, and partial spending that still raises serious concern.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reports that, as of late 2024, Congress has set aside about $182.8 billion for Ukraine since 2022. USAFacts data shows that only $83.4 billion of that has actually gone out the door. Roughly $140.5 billion sits as committed but not yet spent, while about $2.7 billion in funds expired before use.

Military support makes up a large share. The State Department counts more than $66.9 billion in security aid, including Javelin missiles, HIMARS rocket systems, and Patriot air defenses. Much of this equipment comes from U.S. stockpiles under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which lets the president transfer weapons quickly in a crisis.

Opportunity Costs for Taxpayers

Conservatives who care about fiscal responsibility see a steep tradeoff. Supporters of Ukraine aid describe it as an investment in global stability. Critics respond that it deepens the country’s financial strain at a time when the national balance sheet is already in crisis.

The national debt now translates into more than $100,000 in obligations per citizen. The Congressional Budget Office projects that interest payments on this debt could reach $1 trillion per year by 2026.

In that light, even a portion of what Washington sends abroad could make a real difference at home. It could strengthen border security, a core “America First” promise, or help stabilize Social Security and other programs key to aging veterans and working families.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) summed up this frustration on the House floor in 2024, arguing that the U.S. is “borrowing from China to buy drones for Ukraine while our southern border bleeds red ink.”

Hidden and Indirect Costs

Direct appropriations tell only part of the story. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates total U.S. bilateral aid to Ukraine at about €114.2 billion ($119.5 billion) through mid-2025, including roughly $67 billion for military support.

That figure does not reflect related costs that come with a large overseas commitment. The U.S. has boosted troop deployments to Europe since 2022, at a cost of about $45 billion. Sanctions enforcement against Russia has also affected supply chains and raised compliance costs for U.S. businesses.

Oversight has become another flash point. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the Pentagon misvalued about $6.2 billion in equipment sent to Ukraine in 2022 and 2023. For fiscal conservatives, that mistake raises alarms about waste in a conflict zone that already faces corruption concerns.

People who remember the roughly $2 trillion spent over two decades in Afghanistan see echoes of an old pattern. Many heard Trump’s promise to end “forever wars” and now view Ukraine spending as a repeat of the same costly approach, dressed up in new language.

Strategy Under the Microscope: Victory, Stalemate, or Something Else?

How the Biden Strategy Has Shifted

The Biden administration’s early approach to Ukraine focused on quick, emergency shipments of weapons and aid. Over time, this moved toward a longer-term posture built around making Ukraine’s forces more compatible with NATO and preparing for reconstruction.

The FY2024 Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 118-50) set aside about $61 billion for Ukraine and related efforts. That package included roughly $23.4 billion to refill U.S. weapons stocks and $4.65 billion in loans, structured as forgivable, for Ukraine’s government budget.

Institutions such as the Atlantic Council describe this as a “strategic investment” that weakens Russia’s military at a far lower cost than direct U.S. or NATO combat. A 2025 study from the American Enterprise Institute estimated that if Russia wins and pushes further, NATO could face about $808 billion in extra defense costs over five years.

Conservative Concerns About Open-Ended Goals

Many conservatives see this logic as a new form of the same “nation-building” mindset that failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ukraine’s much-hyped counteroffensive in 2023 stalled. Russian forces adjusted tactics and pulled in weapons from partners like Iran and North Korea, as highlighted in CSIS wargames and analysis.

The Kiel Institute projects total Western commitments to Ukraine reaching about €366 billion ($383 billion) through 2025. Europe’s share, about €165.7 billion, slightly exceeds America’s $130.6 billion in comparable commitments. On paper, that suggests U.S. allies are carrying a significant load.

Even so, reports from sources like the BBC still describe Washington as the “indispensable” donor. Many in Europe rely on U.S. leadership and money, which feeds long-standing complaints from Trump and others about NATO “free-riding.”

Pros for Hawks, Cons for “America First” Skeptics

Supporters of Ukraine aid point to clear benefits. Research from the Wilson Center estimates that the war has cost Russia roughly $167 billion so far, draining its resources and limiting its ability to threaten NATO countries.

At home, defense contractors in 38 states have received about $33.6 billion in related contracts. Pentagon planners also see value in testing U.S. weapons systems and tactics in real combat against a major power’s military, which they believe prepares the U.S. for future conflict with China.

For many “America First” conservatives, those arguments do not outweigh the risks. Nuclear threats from Vladimir Putin keep the danger of escalation in the background. Ukraine’s economy now sits at about 78 percent of its prewar size and faces a projected reconstruction bill of about $486 billion.

CSIS warns that if U.S. support drops sharply, Ukraine’s military capability could fall by as much as 80 percent by summer 2026. That outcome would leave the country vulnerable and slowly push it toward defeat or forced concessions.

Critics argue that Washington is funding a stalemate. In their view, that means Ukraine can survive for now but not win clear, lasting security. They question whether tying the U.S. to an indefinite slog in Eastern Europe really counts as a sound conservative strategy.

The Missing Exit Strategy

Even some strong backers of Ukraine aid admit that the current approach needs guardrails. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the loudest GOP voices in favor of Ukraine, said in 2024 that future packages must connect to changes on the U.S. southern border.

That idea, pairing foreign aid with domestic priorities, reflects growing pressure inside the party. It also exposes the biggest weakness in the current plan. There is no obvious endpoint, no clear description of what “victory” looks like, and no timeline for reducing U.S. involvement.

Trump’s “Principled Realism,” laid out in his 2017 speech at the United Nations and archived by the White House, stressed real-world outcomes over ideology. For many conservatives, Ukraine has not delivered those results. Instead, it has locked America into a grinding war with no clear payoff.

Conservative Voices Demanding an America First Reset

A Party Split on Foreign Aid

The Republican debate over Ukraine mirrors a wider split on foreign policy. Old-guard hawks such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) argue that standing firm in Ukraine is key to deterring authoritarian rivals. They warn that a Russian win in Europe could embolden China to move on Taiwan.

The populist “MAGA” wing, with Trump at its center, sees the conflict very differently. To them, large aid bills for Ukraine reflect the priorities of global institutions and foreign elites, not the needs of American workers.

A 2025 report from Reuters described plans by the incoming Trump administration to redirect around $1.8 billion in foreign aid toward projects branded as “America First” goals. These include potential investments in places like Greenland and efforts to counter left-wing governments in Latin America, according to a congressional memo.

Rising Skepticism in the GOP Base

Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance, has been one of the sharpest critics of continued Ukraine funding. In an op-ed for The New York Times, he argued that the $61 billion aid package passed in April 2024 could not deliver victory because the U.S. lacks the manufacturing base to supply Ukraine with what it needs.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has been even more blunt on social media. She calls Ukraine aid “America last” spending and points to problems like homelessness among veterans and rising fentanyl deaths as more urgent priorities.

Polling supports the idea that the Republican base is moving toward a more skeptical view. A YouGov survey from November 2025 found GOP opposition to Ukraine aid at about 22 percent, up from lower levels in 2024. Only 18 percent of Republicans wanted to increase support.

Research from Brookings shows a sharp shift since 2022. About 44 percent of Republican voters now say the U.S. is giving Ukraine “too much” aid, roughly three times the share who felt that way early in the war.

Fiscal Watchdogs Weigh In

Groups focused on spending discipline add another layer of criticism. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that direct transfers of U.S. military gear to Ukraine total about $53.7 billion. They argue that even if that number looks small compared with the full federal budget, the money could address real shortages and needs at home.

The new Trump administration has already sent signals of a broader change in foreign aid policy. A January 2025 State Department release described an overhaul of USAID that would freeze around $80 billion in grants. The message is clear: aid should be more selective and more tightly tied to U.S. interests.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a December 2025 cabinet briefing, laid out the standard for future spending in simple terms. Every dollar, he said, must answer a basic test: “Does it make America safer, stronger, or more prosperous?” Many conservatives now look at Ukraine and say the answer is no.

Rethinking Endless Spending Abroad

The Case for a Reset, Not a Retreat

Calls for a re-examination of Ukraine aid grow louder each month. Even supporters of Kyiv’s fight admit that U.S. help has shifted from emergency relief to something that looks more like a blank check.

Economists for Ukraine estimate that U.S. aid equals about 0.25 percent of the federal budget per year. That might sound small. Still, Ukraine spent roughly $12 billion just to service its debt in 2024, part of a web of financial ties that could leave the U.S. on the hook for years.

Conservatives who believe in limited government and hard choices want clear conditions, stronger audits, and more pressure on European allies to step up. They also want a real diplomatic track that rewards serious peace talks instead of feeding a war with no endpoint.

Trump’s “America First” record, which includes leaving the Paris climate agreement and the INF arms control treaty (as summarized on Wikipedia and other sources), reflected his discomfort with large multilateral agreements that tie U.S. hands. Many of his supporters see long-term Ukraine commitments in the same light.

A phased drawdown, with any future funding tied to real negotiations similar to the old Minsk format, could push Moscow toward a settlement without requiring full Ukrainian surrender. It would also give U.S. voters a sense that there is a plan to reduce costs over time.

Weighing the Risk of Ukrainian Collapse

Think tanks such as CSIS warn that if U.S. support drops off sharply, Ukraine’s military strength could fall to about 20 percent of its current level by 2026. That scenario would expose Ukraine to major losses and potential territorial grabs by Russia.

Advocates of continued funding argue that such an outcome would harm U.S. interests and send a dangerous signal to other aggressors. Opponents respond that war without a clear end harms everyone involved, including Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, and leaves American taxpayers footing the bill for a conflict their leaders never fully explained.

Rebecca Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute has pointed to lapses in oversight and worries about aid going off course as key problems. The Stimson Center has called for better tracking systems to prevent weapons from slipping into black markets, a risk that often grows in long and chaotic wars.

What “America First” Should Mean

In the end, “America First” does not have to mean turning our back on the world. It can mean setting sharper priorities and focusing resources where they matter most for U.S. security and prosperity.

Many conservatives believe that the Indo-Pacific region, and China in particular, represents a far greater long-term challenge than Russia in Ukraine. Shifting attention and resources toward that theater would match the scale of the threat.

Europe is not helpless. According to Statista, EU institutions have already committed about €39 billion in support for Ukraine. European countries as a whole have pledged more aid than the United States. A measured U.S. pullback would force European leaders to take fuller responsibility for security on their own continent.

Trump captured this sentiment at CPAC in 2025 when he told supporters, “We’re done subsidizing the world.” For conservatives, rethinking Ukraine aid does not have to signal weakness. It can signal a course correction that aligns foreign policy with the needs and interests of American citizens.

Where Conservatives Go From Here

The debate over Ukraine aid will shape the broader Republican vision for foreign policy. Should the U.S. keep acting as the main funder of a distant war, or should it demand tighter limits, stronger oversight, and a clear off-ramp?

For “America First” conservatives, the answer is becoming clearer. They want a foreign policy that protects American borders, defends American jobs, and keeps faith with American taxpayers.

That means re-examining every large foreign aid program through a simple lens. Does it genuinely make the United States safer, richer, or more secure in the long run?

Right now, more and more conservatives look at Ukraine aid, the ballooning debt, and the strain on domestic priorities and say it is time to rethink the deal.

Politics

Bill Clinton’s Testimony Triggers Backlash: Bill Says “I Saw Nothing, Did Nothing Wrong

Published

4 days ago

February 28, 2026

VORNews

Bill Clinton-Epstein Testimony Triggers Backlash

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Jeffrey Epstein saga took another sharp turn this week after former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke publicly about their past ties to the convicted sex offender.

Their comments followed closed-door depositions with the House Oversight Committee, and the reaction was immediate. Critics, survivors’ advocates, and political voices accused the Clintons of ducking hard questions and minimizing a well-documented association.

Lawmakers compelled the depositions by subpoena after early pushback, making the sessions a rare moment in which former top officials testified under oath in a congressional review tied to Epstein’s sex trafficking network.

Bill Clinton’s insistence that he “saw nothing” and “did nothing wrong,” paired with Hillary Clinton’s statement that she “does not recall ever encountering” Epstein, sparked a new wave of anger. Among the loudest critics, media personality Megyn Kelly called Clinton a “liar.”

The Latest Depositions: Firm Denials, Sharp Pushback

On February 27, 2026, Bill Clinton sat for nearly six hours of closed-door questioning in New York with the Republican-led House Oversight Committee. In an opening statement later shared on social media, he described Epstein as a “brief acquaintance” and said their contact ended long before Epstein’s crimes became widely known.

“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said. “Even with 20/20 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me pause.” He added that if he had known what Epstein was doing, he would have “turned him in myself.” Clinton pointed to his upbringing in a home touched by domestic abuse as part of his explanation for why he would not have ignored misconduct.

He also confirmed he flew on Epstein’s private plane multiple times for charitable work, and he said Secret Service agents were present. At the same time, he denied ever visiting Epstein’s island and said he never saw illegal behavior. Clinton also said he didn’t recognize a woman pictured with him in a jacuzzi in Justice Department files that later became public.

A day earlier, on February 26, Hillary Clinton testified for more than six hours. In her opening statement, she said, “I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein.” She repeated that she never flew on Epstein’s plane, never visited his properties, and had no involvement with him. She also criticized the committee, saying it was using the matter for partisan distractions.

Both Clintons also tried to distance themselves from Epstein’s associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. In addition, they expressed support for survivors seeking justice and healing.

Critics React: Claims of Evasion and Unbelievable Answers

Even so, the pushback has been intense. Critics argue the denials don’t square with what’s already in the public record. That record includes flight logs that show Bill Clinton on Epstein’s plane at least 26 times, plus reports of Epstein visiting the White House during Clinton’s presidency.

Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and journalist, has led much of the public criticism. In media appearances tied to the Epstein files and the depositions, Kelly rejected Clinton’s account. She called him a “liar” and referred to him as a “predator.” Her comments matched a broader view among detractors that Clinton’s past makes his assurances hard to trust.

Meanwhile, survivors’ advocates and online commentators said the testimonies felt dismissive. Many described the answers as evasive and inadequate for victims who have waited years for clarity.

At the same time, political analysts say the depositions widened partisan gaps. Republicans have focused on the Clintons’ connection to Epstein, while Democrats have pointed to scrutiny of other public figures with their own links to Epstein’s circle.

Bill Clinton’s Record of Controversies Involving Women

This moment also revived attention on Bill Clinton’s long history of allegations involving women, including repeated denials that later collided with new facts or admissions.

Some of the most talked-about episodes include:

Monica Lewinsky affair (1995 to 1997): Clinton initially denied having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He later acknowledged an improper relationship under oath. The House impeached him in 1998 on perjury and obstruction charges, although the Senate acquitted him.
Paula Jones lawsuit: In 1994, Arkansas state employee Paula Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment tied to his time as governor. He settled the case out of court for $850,000 in 1998.
Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation: Broaddrick said Clinton raped her in 1978. Clinton denied the claim through representatives.
Kathleen Willey and Gennifer Flowers: Willey alleged Clinton groped her in the Oval Office. Flowers said she had a long-term affair with him. Both claims became part of the wider scrutiny during his presidency.

Because of this history, critics say Clinton has a pattern of denial followed by partial acknowledgment. As a result, they compare his old responses to his current statements about Epstein.

Where This Fits in the Wider Epstein Case

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while he awaited trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Before his death, he built relationships with influential people across politics, business, and entertainment. Since then, document releases, including flight logs and photographs, have kept the Clintons in the headlines. Still, no evidence has surfaced that links them to criminal conduct.

The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer (R-KY), has issued subpoenas to several people, including the Clintons. The stated goal is to map Epstein’s network and review how government agencies handled related cases. Depending on who’s speaking, the probe has been described as a “serious investigation” or a “clown show.”

Bill Clinton said he cooperated to help prevent future abuse. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton framed the process as politically driven.

The Public Response, and What Comes Next

The depositions quickly dominated news coverage, and social media seized on the Clintons’ wording. Supporters say the couple is being singled out without proof of wrongdoing. Critics say the testimonies reflect how powerful people avoid accountability.

Transcripts and video from the depositions are expected to come out, and the argument is likely to grow louder once they do. For many Americans, the latest chapter keeps the same questions alive: who knew what, who looked away, and why it took so long to get answers tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.

Related News:

Megyn Kelly Slams Hillary Clinton For Extraordinary Hypocrisy

Politics

Calls Mount to Expel Rep. Ilhan Omar from Congress

Published

4 days ago

February 28, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech on February 24, 2026, some Republican lawmakers and conservative voices have renewed calls to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from Congress.

The push follows Ilhan Omar’s loud interruptions during the address, which critics say crossed a line and disrespected the chamber. Omar and her supporters, however, say the outbursts were a form of protest against policies they believe cause real harm.

The night’s clash has reopened a familiar fight in Washington: how far can protest go inside Congress before it becomes misconduct? At the same time, it has added fresh fuel to an already tense and divided House.

What Happened During the State of the Union?

Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress included sharp moments, especially when he turned to immigration and border security. During key parts of the address, Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) shouted objections from the floor. Eyewitnesses and video clips show Omar yelling words such as “liar” and “murderer” as Trump discussed immigration enforcement and referenced incidents involving Somali-American communities in Minnesota.

When Omar interrupted, the loudest moments came as Trump spoke about alleged fraud tied to Somali immigrants and about deaths involving federal agents. Later, Omar said she spoke up to point out what she views as the administration’s role in the deaths of two constituents.
Omar’s guest was removed and arrested: The situation escalated when Omar’s guest, Aliya Rahman, was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police after standing during the address. Police cited “unlawful conduct” and disruption, and they said guests are told that demonstrations are not allowed. Reports also say Rahman is autistic and has shoulder injuries, and that officers warned her before removing her.
Trump answered in the moment: Trump paused and criticized the heckling, calling Democrats “crazy.” He also aimed a direct remark at Omar, telling her, “You should be ashamed.”

In a post-speech interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Omar said she didn’t regret what happened. “I do not [have regrets], and I think many people look at that moment when the president says, ‘It is our responsibility to protect Americans,’ and he does not acknowledge the fact that two Americans… were killed,” she said. Omar framed her interruptions as a reminder that policy choices can have life-and-death effects.

Backlash Builds, With Fresh Demands for Expulsion

The interruptions drew quick condemnation from Republicans and conservative media. The next day, Trump posted at length on TruthSocial, attacking Omar and Tlaib as “Low IQ” and calling them “crooked and corrupt politicians.” He also suggested they should be sent “back from where they came, as fast as possible,” echoing earlier remarks that have brought him criticism.

Because Omar is a U.S. citizen, deportation is not a legal option. Still, the comments helped drive online talk about other punishments, including censure or even expulsion.

Republicans call for action: Several House Republicans backed some form of discipline. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, posted that Omar’s conduct embarrassed Congress and argued for expulsion to restore order.
Conservative media turns up the volume: Fox News and prominent social media accounts pushed the story. Commentator Trish Regan shared a Facebook post about “new calls” to censure Omar and Tlaib after the State of the Union clash. In the replies, some commenters went further and asked for expulsion.
Public reaction splits fast: Videos of the incident spread on YouTube and other platforms, drawing angry comments demanding Omar’s removal. Meanwhile, supporters defended her right to object, saying political speech should not be punished simply because it’s uncomfortable.

Expulsion is difficult. It takes a two-thirds vote in the House, and Congress has used it only five times in U.S. history, usually for severe misconduct such as treason or corruption. Critics of the expulsion push say Omar’s behavior may have been disruptive, but it doesn’t meet that standard. They also warn that it could create a new way to silence opponents.

Omar’s Earlier Controversies and Long-Running Claims of Anti-Semitism

Omar has faced removal talk before. Since entering Congress in 2018, she has drawn intense scrutiny, including repeated accusations of anti-Semitism tied to comments about Israel and pro-Israel lobbying. In 2019, her remarks triggered bipartisan criticism and helped lead to a House resolution condemning hate.

2019 tweets: Omar’s “all about the Benjamins” phrase and comments about dual loyalties brought claims that she used anti-Semitic stereotypes. She apologized, while also saying she still wanted to criticize Israeli policy.
2021 comments: Omar compared the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban, which prompted backlash, including criticism from Democratic leaders.
A debate that never stops: Allies describe Omar as outspoken on progressive causes, including Palestinian rights. Opponents say her statements cross into anti-Semitism. Groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have called for accountability, though past efforts to remove her have not succeeded.

While the State of the Union dispute centered on immigration, it revived these older arguments. Some conservatives claim the outburst fits a larger “anti-American” pattern, and some also repeat the anti-Semitism charge, even though Israel was not the focus of the speech. Omar has repeatedly denied anti-Semitic intent and says her criticism targets policy, not identity.

Democrats Push Back, Warning of Political Payback

Many Democrats have defended Omar and described the expulsion talk as partisan retaliation, especially against minority lawmakers. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called the rhetoric “divisive and unhelpful” and urged lawmakers to focus on policy fights instead of personal attacks.

Omar calls for scrutiny of the arrest: In a press release, Omar demanded an investigation into Rahman’s arrest. She described the response as heavy-handed and said it sends a chilling signal about democratic rights.
Progressives rally around her: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) posted support, arguing that pushing back on lies is part of democracy, not disrespect. Groups such as Justice Democrats echoed that message.
What could come next: Republicans could try censure, which only needs a simple majority. That path looks more realistic than expulsion unless Democrats cross party lines. The episode also reflects a wider breakdown in House decorum, similar to Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during a 2009 address.

Political strategists say the fight may fire up both sides before the midterms. Republicans can use it to brand Democrats as extreme, while Democrats can use it to energize voters against what they see as racism and Islamophobia.

Can Congress Actually Expel Omar?

The Constitution gives each chamber power to discipline members under Article I, Section 5. Still, expulsion remains rare, and most rule violations lead to lesser penalties. Legal experts often note that while House rules demand order during major speeches, Congress typically reserves expulsion for the most serious cases.

Past examples:
- 1861: The House expelled three members for supporting the Confederacy.
- 1980: Rep. Michael Myers was expelled after the Abscam bribery scandal.
- More recent attempts: Efforts to expel Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2021 over inflammatory statements did not pass.

Free speech adds another layer of conflict. The First Amendment complicates any punishment tied to speech, although it does not give members unlimited freedom inside House proceedings. An ethics review is possible, but Omar’s allies also point to Trump’s own history of inflammatory language and call the outrage selective.

Social Media Erupts as Hashtags Take Over

The argument quickly moved online. #ExpelOmar trended on X (formerly Twitter) and drew millions of impressions as users posted clips, reactions, and calls for discipline. Conservatives praised Trump’s response, while progressives circulated Omar’s interview and defended her actions.

Common reactions online:
- Pro-expulsion: Posts calling Omar an embarrassment and demanding removal.
- Anti-expulsion: Posts arguing that speaking up against power should not be treated as a crime, often using #StandWithOmar.
- In-between voices: Others urged both parties to cool it, saying civility in Congress keeps getting worse.

Polling after the address shows a wide partisan split. A Rasmussen survey reported that 52% of Republicans support expulsion, while 12% of Democrats agree. Independents landed in the middle, with 35% in favor.

What This Could Mean for Congress Next

As lawmakers review Rahman’s arrest and draft possible resolutions, the fallout could shape how Congress handles both guests and members during major events. Some lawmakers may push tougher enforcement, while others may resist, warning that stricter rules can turn into political weapons.

For Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, the episode highlights the pressure minority members often face in high-profile fights. She has weathered past controversies, but continued attacks could still shape her 2026 campaign in Minnesota’s 5th District.

At a time when the country argues over immigration, protest, and political norms, this State of the Union clash shows how fragile trust has become. The coming weeks will likely bring more motions, more headlines, and more hard feelings, with little sign that either side plans to back down.

Politics

CNN’s Harry Enten Calls the 2028 Democratic Primary a “Clown Car”

Published

6 days ago

February 26, 2026

VORNews

ATLANTA, Georgia – CNN data analyst Harry Enten delivered a blunt take on the early 2028 Democratic presidential primary. On air, he called the field a “downright clown car” and a “total mess.”

Early polling shows a tight pack, with no one breaking 25% and several names sitting within the margin of error. That sparked a lively discussion about whether Democrats are sliding into a fight between progressives and moderates, and what the rise of figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani could mean for the party’s next era.

All of this lands at an uneasy moment for Democrats. The party is still dealing with the fallout from the 2024 losses, and many voters see no clear next leader. At the same time, Democrats are preparing for the 2026 midterms while facing a Republican Party energized under President Donald Trump. As a result, these early signs of a fractured primary could make unity harder when it matters most.

Polls Show a Crowded Race With No Breakout

Recent surveys suggest Democratic voters are spread out across the field. A Yahoo/YouGov poll from February 2025 showed a close contest among likely contenders:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom leads at 19%, helped by his national profile and messaging on issues like climate change and abortion rights.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris sits at 18%, backed by experience but followed by doubts tied to 2024.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg pulls 13%, with support from many moderates drawn to his pragmatic style.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) gets 12%, reflecting continued strength among progressives focused on economic justice and climate policy.

None of these candidates clears 25%, a level Enten pointed to as a common marker for an early front-runner. Because many polls carry a margin of error of around 3 to 4 points, the top tier looks more like a statistical tie than a settled race. In other words, Democratic voters haven’t rallied around a single option.

Other polling and commentary reinforce the same theme. CNN’s data team has also highlighted how unusual it is to see an open primary with no dominant figure at this stage. In past cycles, such as 2000, 2008, and 2016, big names like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had built clearer leads by this point. This time, name recognition and money may not translate into early momentum.

Enten’s On-Air Take: “Total Mess”

On “CNN News Central” with host John Berman, Enten walked through the numbers and used sharp language to describe what he saw. “Yeah, they’re all running and this is just a downright clown car at this point on the Democratic side,” he said, pointing to how tightly packed the field is.

He also stressed how rare it is for no one to top 25% two years out. While Newsom held a small edge, Enten argued that Newsom also carries a “flailing” image, tied to California’s struggles with homelessness and high taxes. He added that Harris has “baggage” from her time as vice president, while Buttigieg and AOC signal very different paths for the party that could keep the base split.

Enten summed it up with another jab: “This is just a total clown car. It is a total mess. There is no clear frontrunner at this particular point on the Democratic side. Who the heck knows who the nominee is going to be in two years?”

The moment moved fast online. Clips spread on X (formerly Twitter), where both critics and supporters of the party debated what it said about Democratic strength. A post from a conservative account picked up traction, using the segment to mock Democratic disarray.

Panel Response: Jokes, Then Real Worry

The panel’s reaction mixed laughter with concern. Berman chuckled at the “clown car” line, then pushed the group to look at what the numbers might mean. Other guests offered different reads on the same data.

One panelist sounded upbeat, arguing that a wide-open field can boost interest and turnout. They framed it as normal competition that could pull in different groups of voters. Another guest saw danger ahead, warning that a long, bitter primary could drain money and time, while also turning off independents.

Soon, the conversation shifted to the party’s internal split. Moderates defended figures like Newsom and Buttigieg as safer bets in swing areas. Progressives pointed to AOC’s strength with younger voters and many voters of color. Even when the room laughed, the tension underneath was hard to miss.

Progressive vs. Moderate Split, and Why It Feels Bigger Now

Democrats have dealt with factions for decades, but the current divide looks sharper. Progressives want bigger moves on climate, health care, and wealth gaps. Moderates prefer smaller steps, arguing that bold messaging can backfire in close races.

Several pressure points keep coming up:

Policy fights: Progressives push for major programs like Medicare for All, while moderates tend to support narrower changes.
Electability arguments: Supporters of Buttigieg and other centrists say they can win swing voters. Critics say that the approach can fall flat with the base.
2026 primary battles: Progressive challengers are stepping into key races, which puts party splits on display. For example, Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s bid in Texas has drawn GOP attention, with Republicans claiming Democrats are “in shambles.”

Gallup has also tracked movement in Democratic attitudes. One recent Gallup poll found 45% of Democrats want the party to become more moderate, up from 34% in 2021. That shift shows the tug-of-war inside the coalition. If leaders can’t calm it down, the party could lose ground in 2026 and enter 2028 even weaker.

In a podcast episode titled “Can Liberals, Progressives & Moderates Unite to Beat Republicans in November , and 2028?”, guests discussed how fragile the coalition feels. Many agreed that costs and affordability unite Democrats, yet they disagree on the fix. Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has argued for a class-first message focused on jobs, wages, and everyday costs, rather than culture fights.

Rising Names: AOC and Zohran Mamdani Point to a Shift

The growing profile of younger progressives like AOC and Zohran Mamdani signals a possible change in who drives the party’s future. AOC, now 38, has grown from a 2018 upset winner into a major national figure, boosted by strong media skills and a clear message on economics and climate.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old New York State Assembly member and democratic socialist, represents the next wave. First elected in 2020, he has backed policies like rent control, police reform, and Palestinian rights, and he has often challenged establishment Democrats. His rise also highlights the expanding influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in some areas.

Together, they represent a bigger progressive push:

Stronger pull with younger voters: They focus on issues such as student debt relief and environmental justice.
More direct attacks on party power: Mamdani’s critiques of corporate influence echo themes AOC has used for years.
More presence in the national talk: Their inclusion in polls shows progressives aren’t on the sidelines.

Still, critics argue this trend could push away swing voters. After the 2024 losses, some Democrats blamed progressive positions on topics like immigration and crime. Supporters answer that progressive candidates keep winning in many blue districts, and they see that as proof that the message works where turnout matters.

A Familiar Story, Even if the Stakes Feel New

Today’s clash fits a long pattern. Democrats have housed competing groups since the New Deal, with shifting alliances between liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The civil rights era broke the party’s old Southern power base, and later decades elevated more centrist leaders such as Bill Clinton.

More recently, the Obama years ended with a party split between Clinton-style pragmatism and Sanders-style populism. Democrats united behind Joe Biden in 2020, but that unity didn’t erase the underlying strain. After 2024, the arguments returned louder, and the lack of an incumbent for 2028 makes the power struggle even clearer.

A FiveThirtyEight analysis has noted that House Democrats now include roughly similar numbers of moderates and progressives. That balance could swing either way, depending on the next few elections. History also offers cautionary tales. For some Democrats, the 1972 McGovern campaign still stands as a warning about moving too far left and paying for it later.

What a Wide-Open Field Means for Party Leadership

A messy primary creates real risks. Without a clear leader, donors and endorsements can scatter. That can stretch the race out and leave the eventual nominee bruised. Party leaders, including DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, could face pressure to keep the contest from turning into a damaging brawl. Some also talk about changes like superdelegate rules or stronger party platforms, although those debates come with their own baggage.

At the same time, an open contest can help the party. A stronger nominee can emerge after real testing. Some Democrats see figures like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro or Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly as possible unifiers. Progressives, on the other hand, argue Democrats need bolder economic plans to compete with Trump’s populist appeal, including an “abundance agenda” tied to housing and energy.

Some analysts, including voices at the American Enterprise Institute, warn the internal split could hurt Democrats in 2028 if it stays unresolved. One strategist summed up the moderate case this way: being moderate means taking popular positions and breaking with party habits when needed.

What Comes Next for Democrats

With the 2026 midterms approaching, Democrats need a clearer message and fewer internal fights. They also need to rebuild support with working-class voters, especially on costs, wages, and housing. The rise of AOC and Mamdani hints at a stronger leftward pull, while moderates keep warning that swing voters decide national elections.

Enten’s “clown car” line may stick because it captures the mood. Democrats face a hard reality: they can’t afford years of public infighting while Trump’s coalition stays energized. A truce, even a fragile one, may be the price of staying competitive.